sentinel_code_review

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (Pro/Team token in JVII_TOKEN), the data-handling guarantee (code goes only to your own BYOK JEV endpoint, never scraped), and the outcome semantics (a fired abort gate blocks completion). Rate limits and timeout/error behavior are unstated, keeping it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and then the license/privacy caveat, so an agent gets the essentials first. It is dense with branded jargon ("Anti-Slop Sieve", "modal smell label", "cx & hz") that slightly taxes parsing, but there is little true filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload (modal label, cx/hz scores, gate verdicts, refactor directive). Together with auth, privacy, and the completion-blocking behavior, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination/error semantics remain unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters; per the rubric the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal context via "3-run protocol" tying to the runs default, and "one file or snippet" loosely hinting at filePath vs sourceCode, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('audits one file or snippet') and enumerates the outputs (modal smell label, cx/hz scores, gate verdicts, refactor directive). The file-audit scope distinguishes it from the other sentinel_* siblings (supervise, shield_inspect, overseight_monitor), which are supervision/monitoring rather than single-file reviewing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Call it before marking a task complete and fix the flagged slop first; a fired abort gate means completion is blocked" gives explicit when-to-use and a consequence trigger. It lacks an explicit alternative/exclusion clause (e.g., when not to use versus sentinel_shield_inspect), so it stops short of routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.